Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes to tell us of the de-activation of all copies of DECAF. The creators have announced that the DECAF project was nothing more than a "stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools." Originally DECAF was billed as a tool to stop Microsoft's forensic tool "COFEE" and was covered here earlier this week. In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion, so who knows what the real goal was.

Wait a minute. I never even tried it out...are you sure they had the capability to remote control it? Or did it just have some sort of built in time limiter the whole time? If I were intending something to be a stunt, I for one wouldn't bother remote controlling it unless I had some sort of botnet scheme in my head. I'd just set a simple timeout and make it shut down.

It's also strange that I didn't hear many reports about it not working. I guess then the question becomes, how do you know if it's working or not? Do you have a pirated version of COFEE to test it out with?

It'd be interesting though if someone were to hook up a sniffer on their line, leave DECAF installed, and see what happens.

Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.

Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.

COFFEE is an idiotbox collection of tools that Microsoft put together for police to do "forensics" on computers.DECAF runs on your computer and allegedly checks for/neutralizes/prevents COFFEE.The author's general message is "don't trust" and "Jesus"

If you couldn't figure any of that out, you may want to consider improving your reading comprehension skills.What's more likely is that you aren't so stupid, but like to pretend you are on/.

I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.

I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.

The lesson here is that serious security software is not a black box. It's something you can audit and verify. And yes, shame on anyone who thought otherwise and fell for this. They should consider themselves fortunate that this one was rather benign. It could have easily done real damage.

Somehow, I get the impression that they didn't want DECAF to be taken seriously.

From the start, even.

As for the thing about salvation and Jesus, well, for example, Jesus said (paraphrased), "You should learn the truth. Learning the truth will make you free." Putting that into context for you, truth is about reality, and COFEE was/is not about reality, and their DECAF was an unreal response to security snake-oil.

Poorly implemented, perhaps, but I read the message as something like, "You're not free if you tr

One of my favorite quotes. But the actual quote is "I do not reject your Christ, I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Gandhi never actually said he did not like Christians, just that they do not act like Christ.

The author used the publicity to advocate a cause that he personally considers important

Which of these are bad? And why? I've often heard that getting a personal message out via publicity stunts is a good thing (The Yes Men) and now all the sudden it's bad, and we should pay no attention to these reprehensible people whose only method is deceit?

Well the Yes Men don't try to get me to install stuff to my PC for one thing. This time we're assuming it's something harmless, but this would have been a fantastic way to do something malicious.
Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.

Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.

And seeing as it _is_ a cause I believe in, I will chime in with said criticism. It's not unlike those tracts that look like money that people sometimes leave as "tips". Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.

Well the Yes Men don't try to get me to install stuff to my PC for one thing.

If they succeed in getting you to download, install, and execute untrusted and unvetted code, that's your fault. I really consider any "threat" that requires my active participation to be a complete and total non-issue.

The Genie is out of the bottle. This has been an excellent learning experience. We now know of a couple of hundred utilities that will clean up some far away places in Windows. My personal thanks to those that made these programs.

Come on, this is good and easy fun. Pop it in IDA, trace it down to its fail point (calls to check the date?), replace critical code (i.e. jumps) with a fixed condition (i.e. jmp rather than jge), and done. The branch can be fixed; or the entire call/compare/branch can even be replaced with nop, nop, jump. It's even feasible to replace the 4 + 2 byte call with CMP %eax, %eax and a NOP, and the branch with a JZ branch (jump if comparison is equal/zero/etc).

Great idea, so do you want to sift through countless lines of assembly.

Run, generate a call trace, walk backwards to a suspicious function (one that calls getdatetime() or such), etc. It's easy to find system calls and log the call path with a debugger. This is more a strategy exercise than an exercise in brute force reading and altering raw code, which means it's both fun and actually not much work if you know what you're doing.

Why are we jumping to assembly though...who says a decompiler wont produce good enough code first?

Because there's no such thing. Optimization destroys decompilation. Currently the very best and most awesome decompilers generate a clunk of ga

Yeah well the atheists and libertarians that you don't like are merely posting comments on this site. I may not like libertarians, but I can't remember the last time one of them wrote a timebomb malware program, to go off at a set point, and give me a pro-libertarian screed.

Well, in the original Slashdot DECAF article, there were a large number of folks who guessed that this might be a piece of malware, or at least not be what it appeared. Given that they were essentially right and the author's credibility now has to be seen as zero, what weight should be given to his profession of faith? I have to wonder if he isn't a non-Christian, since deceiving people is against Christian principles.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being a self-righteous prick with that last statement regarding Christianity.
Deceiving people is against the tenets of many, many religions; likewise, there are a frightening volume of scammers, swindlers, abusers, liars, deceivers, moral pretenders, and downright assholes flying under the banner of Christianity. Just because someone is deceiving folks doesn't mean they're not a Christian, and a statement to that effect is along the lines of why the

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being a self-righteous prick

Heh heh. I'm certain that from time to time I am a self-righteous prick, but not this time (not intentionally, anyway). I was pointing out the irony of his conduct vs. his profession of faith, not as evidence that he's a good or bad Christian, but because I think he's carrying out an elaborate troll-on-top-of-a-troll.

I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.

I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.

He's got a point. The Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, and Atheists all have their differing views of a higher power. They all can't be right, and the majority will be wrong. I wouldn't label them as deceptive though, as I don't think they are knowingly telling falsehoods. Well, except maybe the Scientology kooks and a few of the other cults out there. I have no problem if someone want's to believe differently than I do, but I do get annoyed when they keep shoving it down my throat and insisting that th

But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.

But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.

Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty. For just that reason, it cannot be tolerated by anyone who stants to profit from this status quo. Such people include powerful politicians and influential members of the media. These are people who can influence the society and the prevailing opinions of the day quite a bit more than most people would like to admit.

It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own. If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.

Such people who form strong opinions and beliefs about things they have not investigated are sometimes called "useful idiots." They are extremely useful anytime you want to deceptively campaign against something. They are so useful because they will accept ideas from others and adopt them as if they independently came up with those ideas on their own. Look at the methods used here. The negative portrayal of Liberterianism is based almost exclusively on pretending like its most extreme form is its only form, and so anyone who calls himself a Libertarian is immediately equated with an anarchist or anarco-capitalist. This is a classic example of straw-man or red-herring demagoguery in the media. It's so easily refuted that there can be nothing accidental about it.

I'm going to do a bit of politics myself and see if I can influence things then. I actually went to a town hall meeting this month for the first time. I know one person who is a municipal councillor and he invited me because of my interests in politics. I suppose we should all do this and slowly nudge the laws towards liberty ourselves. If most politicians want power for power's sake like you say, that would be the only way to change things.

He did tell me that if I was really interested I could become influential with time, but that you had to know people that are already in the game to play it properly...

He did tell me that if I was really interested I could become influential with time, but that you had to know people that are already in the game to play it properly...

People who probably won't give you the time of day unless your beliefs are not too different from theirs. Hence the problem with reforming the Democrat/Republican system or otherwise introducing pro-freedom elements into it. Both of them function to get people as helpless and dependent on government as possible. One does this with social

The thing is, on/. you get to see some of the crazy left, and some of the crazy right. But the craziest motherfuckers you see here? All self-professed libertarians.

Honestly I haven't seen too many crazy Libertarians here and I'm no stranger to the site, but for the sake of argument let's assume that many of them fit this description.

It's still up to the reader to determine whether these folks actually represent what they claim to represent. It always was and has always been this way for as long as humans have communicated with one another. If I saw a Christian talking about how much he loves to worship Satan, I have two choices: I can assume all Christians are j

The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.

Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.

I'm not sure why you seem to equate Libertarianism to Anarchism in response to my post. Sure, anarchy would reduce the size and power of government, but its ultimate goal would be to eliminate government entirely. With no government of any kind, what you can expect next is that a few warlords would establish local dictatorships. They would protect their territory against other warlords much like street gangs do against rival gangs. A perfect implementation of Anarchism would quickly lead to the average

The perfect implementation of Libertarianism would include a government that is at least strong enough to provide effective law enforcement, as this is viewed as a basic and legitimate function of government.

There are a helluva lot of people out there who also consider things like education, firefighting, healthcare, and provision of basic needs like food and shelter as a "basic and legitimate function of government" as well.

The state would only use its law-enforcement powers to curtail activities that

There are a helluva lot of people out there who also consider things like education, firefighting, healthcare, and provision of basic needs like food and shelter as a "basic and legitimate function of government" as well.

I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept. T

I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept.

I can confidently say I've never met anyone who identified themselves as Libertarian who would even *entertain* the idea of Healthcare being a legitimate service of Government. Heck, you're lucky to even get firefighters ou

You know, I'm reading all of this and I'm starting to wonder if I'm really a libertarian. I considered myself a weak libertarian, but then I'm from Canada where we have universal healthcare. I wouldn't consider removing that.

But then, our liberals want to have a nanny-state and our conservatives want to impose their morals on us... What am I if I want a really weak nanny-state that doesn't impose morals?

The problem with libertarianism is it has a very narrow definition of what government services protect liberty and freedom.

Anything two consenting adults do could include slavery and yet we know that even consensual slavery can easily result in a system where the powerful abuse those without influence to put them in a situation where they no longer are free.

We all have our own concepts of what the government's role is and how it can best serve the public good. Libertarians just arbitrary define their view

It's not particularly trendy, it's just given the variety of positions people can take, not everyone will choose a particular one. When Libertarians *cough* assert that everyone would be one if only they would look into it, they're being ridiculous.

I was a libertarian for many years. I eventually changed my positions.

You're very ignorant about the founding fathers. They were by no means posessed of any modern political ideologies - they had different issues, different positions, and radically different ways

Ignoring the possibility that someone could understand your ideas, yet still have sincere, fundamental disagreements with them is one of the ways our brains filter out contradictory information. Don't fall into that trap.

Would you like to hear something interesting? I'm a libertarian socialist - I think the government has a responsibility to do things like transportation, utilities, telecom, and other infrastructure, but that they should have essentially no control over individual people.

In my opinion, libertarians have a collective persecution bias. I don't think libertarians (little L) would know what to do with themselves if they actually became a significant force. Oh the status quo and people profiting and the founding

Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty.

Your words seem to be an extension of the no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] fallacy.You'd have to start by telling us which version of Libertarianism you think will solve America's ills before we can have a learned discussion on the matter.

As a general comment though, history has shown that time and time again, when ideology and reality meet, ideology usually fails.A more pointed comment is that America tried laissez faire economics (a principle key of most libertarian ideology) and its own excesses earned it a well deserved death.Agencies like the EPA, FDA, SEC, FTC, etc were all formed as a direct response to libertarian practices.

It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own.

I used to be a libertarian myself in my uni days.

Now? See my sig.

If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.

I'm not an American. What are your Founding Fathers to me?

It also makes me wonder - so "truest libertarians who ever lived" considered ending the relatively minor oppression of American colonists by British government more important than ending slavery (since, regardless of their personal opinions on slavery - and not all of them were opponents - they chose to gloss over it when establishing the nation)?

If you get right down to it, the psiops tricks you are claiming are being used against libertarianism by equating it with anarchy are the ones once used against anarchy (and they evidently worked, at least on you - nothing personal, they have worked on most people). Literally translated from the Latin, anarchy does not mean no laws, but no rulers. A lot of its advocates are simply advocating that there be no ruling class - for example just about everyone in the UK who opposes the institution of the Monarchy

There is no word a person motivated by the desire for self-justification can't twist.

Anyway, questions of particular religions aside, when we can find a way to get past the false concept that atheism and agnosticism are somehow morally above religion, we'll discover that there is no way to keep religion out of a conversation.

Refraining from using religion to troll is another matter, but there may even be an appropriate place and time for using re

If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

Because you may as well enjoy yourself while you are alive. Many bible-beating christians seem to try their best *not* to enjoy themselves while alive, because they are preparing for a wonderful afterlife.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. That book, 'The Purpose Driven Life', spawned tons of prayer groups and such focused around finding Jesus' personal plan for you. I guess it's possible that they actually did all find a purpose after that, but from what I can tell most are still 'scrambling' for it.

You're suggesting that COFEE is able to distinguish criminal activity from non-criminal, and only allow law enforcement to use it to get forensics for criminal activity? That's some pretty f*&#ing amazing artificial intelligence in there, since the law enforcement officers themselves often have a very hard time making that distinction and it ends up having to be settled by courts.

Government would just rick roll you for your IP, prove to a judge you could maybe have a taste for young and visit you at 7 am.
Or note your CC number as part of an ongoing investigation.
Then pour COFFEE on your box. Let DECAF be a download reminder about closed source apps, next time it could be heros and white knights harvesting all they can about end users.Vigilantes at a door they accessed via the 'registered' details in your MS box... enraged with self righteousness.